We performed a comparison between AppDynamics and OpenText SiteScope based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It reduces the time to resolve issues and requires less manpower."
"Before we moved the code to AppDynamics, we had to compare the agile process and also had to make sure that they're following the standards."
"It's good for a larger scale deployment such as what my company is working on."
"The business transaction that stands between multiple applications is proving to be most valuable."
"I find troubleshooting is quicker because we can drill down into the end points and see which endpoints are getting critical. Visibility-wise, the micro details are easy to find."
"This is a stable product and we definitely plan to continue using it in the future."
"I like how the AppDynamics dashboard portrays the information flows. When a task is executed, various flows between different applications and databases happen in the background. The dashboard is intuitive and helps visualize the connections, the directions of the flow, and the information related to these specific sessions."
"It allows us to configure health rules so that we can, based on our own experience, determine when an application is behaving incorrectly."
"It has multiple monitors that can be deployed OOTB, which includes basic system monitors for CPU, Disk, Memory, NIC's, etc."
"VM monitoring is pretty good showing good visualizations of how VMs are operating within the context of all the VMs running on the same hypervisor."
"The product's readymade templates are perfect. It supports us a lot when we don't have much experience with the product. The templates offers us direction to proceed."
"The most valuable feature of OpenText SiteScope is that it is easy to manage and user-friendly."
"It's a very flexible product so you can run a script out of it, even straight out of the box."
"It can monitor over a 100 technologies with built-in solution templates."
"Infrastructure monitoring is the most valuable feature."
"Being able to create your monitors for monitoring your internal URLs and databases and other things like that is valuable."
"The QA and test environment need improvement."
"SQL statement monitoring"
"AppDynamics is agent-based, so some customers are reluctant to install the agents in all their production environments. It would be helpful if they had an agentless version. It covers applications on the server, but the solution is weak on the network side. The agent is not deployed on the network components, so it cannot provide complete information about issues on the network layer."
"We have had downtime, which has been the result of config, application, or cord issues."
"AppDynamics' modules and hardware resources are very high."
"The documentation and training material have room for improvement."
"The integration ability of AppDynamics with other performance testing tools is an area with shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The resolution time takes longer than expected."
"The graphs and dashboard in the solution are areas that need improvement."
"Full application functionality available via the API. There are some functions you can perform managing monitors, that are only available through the UI."
"It should improve its integrations with various tools, especially service management tools."
"The tool needs to support new technologies like Kubernetes. It also needs to improve scalability."
"We'd like a uniform interface for monitoring our system, since that's the purpose of SiteScope."
"In terms of issues with Micro Focus SiteScope, some that we've run into were unintended, for example, extra executions of monitors and some false alerts when there were problems connecting to endpoints or there were issues with the application that sometimes resulted in false positives. We had a few issues with the way time zones were configured when the system time differed from the time indicated during the monitoring, but those were just little things that weren't too bad. As far as the limitations of Micro Focus SiteScope, the types of scripting files that can be executed are rather limited unless you go to some third-party plugins. These are the areas for improvement in the solution."
"They have not kept up with browser security requirements or advances in GUIs, they switched to a corruptible database architecture instead of text config files."
"Micro Focus Voltage SiteScope could improve by adding more features, such as cloud, APM, and DevOps monitoring."
AppDynamics is ranked 5th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 154 reviews while OpenText SiteScope is ranked 28th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 24 reviews. AppDynamics is rated 8.2, while OpenText SiteScope is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AppDynamics writes "Very good real-time monitoring capabilities, deep problem diagnosis, and transaction mapping". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText SiteScope writes "Doesn't require much custom coding and can run on different platforms, but the types of scripting files you can execute on it are limited". AppDynamics is most compared with Dynatrace, Elastic Observability, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic, whereas OpenText SiteScope is most compared with SCOM, Dynatrace, Prometheus, Splunk Enterprise Security and New Relic. See our AppDynamics vs. OpenText SiteScope report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.